|
IMO sexist story to begin with. If two males jump the counter, attack an employee and get beaten up badly it won't even make the news.
Employee went a bit overboard towards the end, but with the adrenalin flowing it is hard to restrain yourself. Apart from that, he did what he could to avoid the situation (retreat, threatening with the bar before attacking).
Guy had definately a right to defend himself with all means possible against two highly aggressive attackers who might have been armed with knives or guns (it's America afterall, good chance they have weapons).
The attackers could have easily avoided their injuries if they behaved normally like everyone else. They failed to do so and payed a high price, but that is not the employees problem.
Good decision from the jury
|
just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor.
but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area.
I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
|
I dont blame the guy for defending himself, agree with the court.
|
Man they got seriously beat down. They deserved it, but tbh I think his "self defence" was a little over the top. Generally you're supposed to stop once the attacker is incapacitated 
|
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote:
just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor.
but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area.
I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
Well the dude was in jail for 10 years for manslaughter.
I think we now can see why lol. No one rational acts like that.
Girl slaps and spits on you----------> break her skull in and snap her arm with metal rod.
|
Seems a bit excessive to keep beating them with a pipe after they are already on the floorm even though he clearly has a right to defend himself in this situation. But I geuss this has been considered by the court, not really my place to criticise what another country considers an acceptable amount of force. I feel no sympathy for the women who got hurt.
|
I hope the women get imprisoned. We need to get rid of scum from our society, breaking the law and provoking response should never be tolerated. Good on you, US law and customs, that you don't tolerate that. Here the defender would probably serve a nice ten years in prison and the attackers would at best clean the streets for a month.
|
On December 13 2012 23:10 YoucriedWolf wrote:
That was very pleasing to watch from the other side of the world :3
I just wished he would have dished out the punishment a bit more evenly so both girls would've learned a valuable lesson instead of seriously harming one.
But I suppose they all should be punished...
I didn't watch with sound though.
youre one sick fuck
|
On December 13 2012 23:19 Talin wrote:
Laws should encourage restraint, not aggression. You should always be required to use the minimal force to defend yourself, and if there is any evidence that you "overdid it", you should be punished accordingly. The right to self defense shouldn't be a license to maim or kill.
To ensure that attackers have an easier time hurting you? Honestly if someone gets attacked COMPLETELY unprovoked by people that are in clear state of mind (read: not drunk or on drugs or something) he or she should be allowed to do whatever they feel is right to ensure their own safety.
If someone attacks for absolutely reason they give up their right to personal well-being.
"I hit this dude just for fun in the face, he then broke my arm, now I sued him and he goes to jail." Sound good to you?
|
On December 13 2012 23:23 Kurumi wrote:
Here the defender would probably serve a nice ten years in prison and the attackers would at best clean the streets for a month.
Sounds reasonable, albeit 10 years is a little excessive.
On December 13 2012 23:24 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:19 Talin wrote:
Laws should encourage restraint, not aggression. You should always be required to use the minimal force to defend yourself, and if there is any evidence that you "overdid it", you should be punished accordingly. The right to self defense shouldn't be a license to maim or kill. To ensure that attackers have an easier time hurting you? Honestly if someone gets attacked COMPLETELY unprovoked by people that are in clear state of mind (read: not drunk or on drugs or something) he or she should be allowed to do whatever they feel is right to ensure their own safety.
I don't agree with that. "Whatever they feel is right" is a very dangerous wording and a slippery slope.
Laws should require people to show restraint and make the correct judgement even in the most difficult situations.
If someone thinks they can't do it, they should take a self defense course of some sort and get adequate training so that they know exactly how to respond to these situations.
|
Oh man. At first after reading the article I was on his side. Then I watched the youtube video. I was completely ok with the first 2 swings. Then the next few had me thinking "I can understand this being assault." Then he went over the top, bashing them on the ground. Then he stopped for a few seconds when people screamed STOP, he looked scared, unsure of what to do, then RESUMED beating them!
First few hits were ok, then there was a grey area, then it was definite assault in my eyes.
|
I think what he did was fine.
Yeah, he hit them a few times when they were on the floor, damn right. If you're attacked with no provocation it's sensible to not just floor them, but make sure they're not getting back up until the police arrive, I'd have no hesitation sticking my boots in until I'm certain they're not going to be able to fight anymore.
|
On December 13 2012 21:46 LibertyNA wrote:
is there such a thing as excessive violence in self defense? one of the girls got a fractured skull and a broken arm. he could of stopped once they were down, i'm sure the broken arm came after the fractured skull to protect herself
the guys been in jail for manslaughter charges; if he feels like he needs to stand his ground like that, he needs to man up a different way
might be considered temporary insanity, it sometimes happens when people snap (iirc)
|
On December 13 2012 23:22 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote:
just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor.
but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area.
I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc Well the dude was in jail for 10 years for manslaughter. I think we now can see why lol. No one rational acts like that. Girl slaps and spits on you----------> break her skull in and snap her arm with metal rod.
Girl slaps and spits on you you then try to get away, she breaks into your home (jumping over the counter is tresspassing) and proceeds to follow you while her friend tries to cut your route of escape off. Yeah, how DARE HE lay hands on these innocent flowers..
|
On December 13 2012 23:19 Talin wrote:
Laws should encourage restraint, not aggression. You should always be required to use the minimal force to defend yourself, and if there is any evidence that you "overdid it", you should be punished accordingly. The right to self defense shouldn't be a license to maim or kill.
People aren't trained like police officers. During altercations you don't know how to effectively react, and your spike of adrenaline and "fight or flight" mentality takes over.
Like I said, the dude shouldn't go to jail because he was obviously on the other hand of a tense situation, but he's still proven to me he's a pussy.
|
On December 13 2012 23:24 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:23 Kurumi wrote:
Here the defender would probably serve a nice ten years in prison and the attackers would at best clean the streets for a month. Sounds reasonable, albeit 10 years is a little excessive. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:24 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 13 2012 23:19 Talin wrote:
Laws should encourage restraint, not aggression. You should always be required to use the minimal force to defend yourself, and if there is any evidence that you "overdid it", you should be punished accordingly. The right to self defense shouldn't be a license to maim or kill. To ensure that attackers have an easier time hurting you? Honestly if someone gets attacked COMPLETELY unprovoked by people that are in clear state of mind (read: not drunk or on drugs or something) he or she should be allowed to do whatever they feel is right to ensure their own safety. I don't agree with that. "Whatever they feel is right" is a very dangerous wording and a slippery slope. Laws should require people to show restraint and make the correct judgement even in the most difficult situations. If someone thinks they can't do it, they should take a self defense course of some sort and get adequate training so that they know exactly how to respond to these situations.
So now it is mandatory for me to visit self defence classes or I will not get permission to leave my home?
What kind of world do you want to live in?!
|
Looks like he unevenly dished out the punishment.
Should have made sure he broke the other girls arm or skull as well.
|
On December 13 2012 23:25 FabledIntegral wrote:
Oh man. At first after reading the article I was on his side. Then I watched the youtube video. I was completely ok with the first 2 swings. Then the next few had me thinking "I can understand this being assault." Then he went over the top, bashing them on the ground. Then he stopped for a few seconds when people screamed STOP, he looked scared, unsure of what to do, then RESUMED beating them!
First few hits were ok, then there was a grey area, then it was definite assault in my eyes.
They were getting back up and his instructions were for them to stay on the ground. This was behind the counter.
|
After reading the rather biased article, I was on the side of the two women. Metal pipe and fractures? Definate over reaction.
Then I saw the video. The man retreated and was cornered. Other store employees and customers totally reluctant to help him. Especially that idiot fat white woman costumer who kept yelling stop. Well idiot fat white woman costumer, why didn't you yell stop when someone was being assaulted? That was no metal pipe. It's a cleaning rod.
He was totally justified considering the situation. If somebody or two people are so mentally imbalanced that they would leap over a counter, there is no telling whether they have weapons, not to mention boiling vats of oil. He did a good job by preventing those women from straying into the more dangerous parts of the shop, where the possibility of permanant injuries lay.
|
-the "girls" are terrible stupid bitches and scum. no question.
-its sad that NO ONE did anything. atleast at the point where they go behind the counter the rest of the staff should just cut of their way/do something. doubt they wouldve started a fight with the whole staff when they just stood in the way while he goes somewhere in the back.
-while the girls had it coming its still not ok to beat em down with a weapon and continue when they already hit the floor
overall a shitty story. scum beeing scum, other people beeing passive idiots, him going too quickly too far.
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote:
just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor.
but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area.
I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
is getting angry a excuse for excessive violence? was he really in such a danger that beating people down breaking bones is fine? in the end the only physical thing from them was a bitchslap. its hard to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
